(Total Views: 180)
Posted On: 01/29/2017 10:57:56 PM
Post# of 65629
it has EVERYTHING to do with the Electoral college, and it's misuse by a backward society that was going to be 'gone with wind' Civil War or not.
You said that the Congress could have gotten rid of slavery anytime they wanted. The article I posted, from a book based upon footnoted scholarship, confirms they never had either the will or the votes to do so.
'The North did not give a rat's ass'? The abolitionists would disagree with that.
The article I posted is an historical work of scholarship that correctly identifies what WOULD have been the 13th amendment if the outgoing president could've made it so.
It was probably the last gasp from a president who knew that the South was not going to gain from war what they couldn't win through legislation.
You're flogging a weak, revisionist history case for holding on to an anachronistic way to elect a president.
And let's be honest. Every defense of the Electoral college is premised upon a presumed virtue of rural over urban, poorly educated over better educated, smaller populated States over higher populated States.
As though what? The second half of each of those 'under/overs' are less deserving of having a popular vote choice for president
There are exceptions to that 'formula within each voting area, but those are the rule rather than the exception. Check the demographics before going bat-shit.
Let ONE election be decided for a Dem with a lower popular vote that he Republican and this whole fucking argument is reversed.
And don't insult anyone's intelligence by claiming that the losing GOP will be all 'Republican Virtue' about keeping the electoral college if they're on the losing end of THAT scenario.
Trump MF's were crying 'fixed' before there was even a vote cast.
Anyway, GOP is two for two on electoral vote wins and popular vote losses, over the past 17 years.
Bet the electoral college will not survive a '3 for 3'.
You said that the Congress could have gotten rid of slavery anytime they wanted. The article I posted, from a book based upon footnoted scholarship, confirms they never had either the will or the votes to do so.
'The North did not give a rat's ass'? The abolitionists would disagree with that.
The article I posted is an historical work of scholarship that correctly identifies what WOULD have been the 13th amendment if the outgoing president could've made it so.
It was probably the last gasp from a president who knew that the South was not going to gain from war what they couldn't win through legislation.
You're flogging a weak, revisionist history case for holding on to an anachronistic way to elect a president.
And let's be honest. Every defense of the Electoral college is premised upon a presumed virtue of rural over urban, poorly educated over better educated, smaller populated States over higher populated States.
As though what? The second half of each of those 'under/overs' are less deserving of having a popular vote choice for president
There are exceptions to that 'formula within each voting area, but those are the rule rather than the exception. Check the demographics before going bat-shit.
Let ONE election be decided for a Dem with a lower popular vote that he Republican and this whole fucking argument is reversed.
And don't insult anyone's intelligence by claiming that the losing GOP will be all 'Republican Virtue' about keeping the electoral college if they're on the losing end of THAT scenario.
Trump MF's were crying 'fixed' before there was even a vote cast.
Anyway, GOP is two for two on electoral vote wins and popular vote losses, over the past 17 years.
Bet the electoral college will not survive a '3 for 3'.
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
